snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Glurge Gallery

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 21 February 2008, 09:01 PM
Tootsie Plunkette's Avatar
Tootsie Plunkette Tootsie Plunkette is offline
 
Join Date: 26 October 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,137
TV

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Infree View Post
I have no speakers, so I missed the music. From what I read, I am glad.
Likewise.

Quote:
...we watched the same shows because we had no choice...
In most places you had your choice of up to three channels (ABC, NBC, CBS), or four if you had a Public Television station.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 22 February 2008, 04:19 AM
Sara@home's Avatar
Sara@home Sara@home is offline
 
Join Date: 18 March 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 12,468
Default

I'm one of the few people here who actually lived through the 60's and was old enough to remember them. I'd go back. Yeah, like any other era, there were some bad things but all in all it was a pretty good time.

You know, don't you, that when these things get posted some of you act like a bunch of kids sitting around making fun of everything that existed before you?

Couple of responses:

Shotgun weddings....many of the ones from the 60's have lasted 40 years. I know others from my mother's generation that last longer.

No, there weren't drive by shootings in the 60's. Even gang violence hadn't escalated to using guns on a regular basis.

Interacial marriages weren't illegal and considered immoral everywhere.

We did duck-and-cover drills twice a year at school; they lasted 10 minutes max. No one lived with a conscious fear of having an bomb dropped. Compared to what goes on at schools today, yeah, it was a whole lot more innocent and simple.

For the life of me I can't figure out how that Murphy Brown quote would be considered tongue-in-cheek.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 22 February 2008, 04:27 AM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,547
Default

Here's what I think, Sara. (By the way, I totally make fun of things I do remember.) For you the sixties were simpler. You were not aware of the same level of violence existing in your time than what you are aware of now.

However, I am quite sure my mother doesn't remember the sixties that way. For her, the sixties involved the divorce of her parents, her mother's fourth and fifth marriages, a violent home life, no indoor plumbing (yes, even in the sixties--it was rural Oklahoma), and all sorts of daily struggles. For her, the life she lives now is more innocent and simple. It's all a matter of perspective.

Avril
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 22 February 2008, 04:28 AM
Sara@home's Avatar
Sara@home Sara@home is offline
 
Join Date: 18 March 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 12,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BringTheNoise View Post
I'm also confused about the sports page. If "everyone" followed the same sports teams, how did they manage to support a league?
There were about half as many teams, the salaries were much lower, the stadiums had no bells and whistles, did I mention that the salaries were much lower?

Oh yeah, the salaries were much lower, too.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 22 February 2008, 04:32 AM
Sara@home's Avatar
Sara@home Sara@home is offline
 
Join Date: 18 March 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 12,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Here's what I think, Sara. (By the way, I totally make fun of things I do remember.) For you the sixties were simpler. You were not aware of the same level of violence existing in your time than what you are aware of now.
No, you're wrong both about what I knew then and about the level of violence.

Quote:
However, I am quite sure my mother doesn't remember the sixties that way. For her, the sixties involved the divorce of her parents, her mother's fourth and fifth marriages, a violent home life, no indoor plumbing (yes, even in the sixties--it was rural Oklahoma), and all sorts of daily struggles. For her, the life she lives now is more innocent and simple. It's all a matter of perspective.
That's your mother's personal life, not the era. More kids have divorced parents now than then. I suspect abuse is more common now than then. People struggle daily now just like then. Her life may be more innocent and simple but that's not the issue at hand -- it's the era we're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 22 February 2008, 05:22 AM
zephyra
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
Loving v. Virginia, which outlawed prohibitions on interracial marriage, was decided in 1967. Some states might have still had the dead-letter law forbidding interracial marriage on their books, but it still would have been legal all through the 90s.

Whether or not they were considered immoral is anyone's guess, I suppose.
Well, they weren't illegal, but where I lived it sure was an issue. I remember hearing a lot about it and asking my parents "what's the big deal?"
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 22 February 2008, 02:33 PM
Lancastrian's Avatar
Lancastrian Lancastrian is offline
 
Join Date: 17 March 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara@home View Post
I suspect abuse is more common now than then.
Abuse is more commonly talked about, but I sincerely doubt abuse is actually more common now, especially in the home. Those 'marital issues' and 'funny uncles' were domestic violence and child abuse, they just weren't polite to talk about or considered police matters. Abuse is more visible, not more common.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 22 February 2008, 03:10 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara@home View Post
You know, don't you, that when these things get posted some of you act like a bunch of kids sitting around making fun of everything that existed before you?
No, I don't know that, as I've seen people post similar things about periods that they lived through and remembered. I've done so myself, just recently, in a thread about the 1970s.

I don't believe in the good old days, and I think getting nostalgic for them is a waste of time. And yes, I enjoy laughing at nostalgia. That's why I come into these threads.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 22 February 2008, 03:14 PM
Ali Infree's Avatar
Ali Infree Ali Infree is offline
 
Join Date: 02 February 2007
Location: Colliers, WV
Posts: 2,597
Glasses

Sara@home sez:
Quote:
Interacial marriages weren't illegal and considered immoral everywhere.
On the question of illegality, this tends to support Sara's contention. I would say that in my part of the world, during the 1960's interracial marriages were very controversial, even within my own family.

Again, I have no desire to return to these days that I also remember. A woman and a bi-racial man as chief contenders to the Democratic Presidential nomination, not an option then. Another war with little rationale and a high economic cost and higher toll on those defending us--that's a draw. Abuse (meaning I guess domestic violence and child abuse) might be a toss-up, there are a lot more of us and the discussions are more open now.
More violence, yes, and really more economic inequality. But much more openness and diversity as well.

Overall, I like many more things now including that interweb invention everyone is talking about.

Ali "Candide is me" Infree
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 23 February 2008, 03:53 AM
Sara@home's Avatar
Sara@home Sara@home is offline
 
Join Date: 18 March 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 12,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancastrian View Post
Abuse is more commonly talked about, but I sincerely doubt abuse is actually more common now, especially in the home. Those 'marital issues' and 'funny uncles' were domestic violence and child abuse, they just weren't polite to talk about or considered police matters. Abuse is more visible, not more common.
As I said, I think abuse is more common now. Not more talked about, more common.

For instance, I never heard of, let alone knew, a high school girl who was physically abused by her boyfriend. Not because she didn't talk about, because it didn't happen. My son has know a number of girls whose boyfriends smacked them around. From what I read, it's common.

Abuse of children is more common when there is a man not their father in the home. That is far more common now in these days of common divorce and single mothers than it was in the days when there were fewer divorces and shotgun weddings.

The stress and pressures of modern life are condusive to increasing, not decreasing, abuse.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 23 February 2008, 07:22 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara@home View Post
For instance, I never heard of, let alone knew, a high school girl who was physically abused by her boyfriend. Not because she didn't talk about, because it didn't happen.
How do you know, if she didn't talk about it? What if it wasn't even considered a serious issue, and therefore not the kind of common knowledge that would spread around the school?

I knew of a girl being headbutted by her boyfriend, a young man who was a total nutter in more ways than one. I only knew because I was in her class and lots of people were present when it happened. If I wasn't in her class I wouldn't have had any inkling, and could make the claim that no girl was abused in my school less than ten years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 24 February 2008, 01:35 PM
Rhysdux Rhysdux is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2006
Location: West Hartford, CT
Posts: 40
Teacher

As long as we're discussing the accuracy of the glurge, let me bring up the TV shows cited. Though they were RUNNING in the 1960s, not all of them STARTED in the 1960s. And one was wholly made in the 1950s.

Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Original Run -- October 2, 1955 May 10, 1965
American Bandstand: Original Run -- August 5, 1957 October 7, 1989
Bonanza: Original Run -- September 12, 1959 - January 16, 1973
The Ed Sullivan Show: Original Run -- Premiered on June 20, 1948 with the title Toast of the Town. Retitled The Ed Sullivan Show on September 25, 1955. Ended on June 6, 1971.
Father Knows Best: Original Run -- October 3, 1954 - September 17, 1960
Gunsmoke: Original Run -- September 10, 1955 - March 31, 1975
Have Gun -- Will Travel: Original Run -- September 14, 1957 April 20, 1963
I Love Lucy: Original Run -- October 15, 1951 May 6, 1957
Leave It To Beaver: Original Run -- October 4, 1957 June 20, 1963
Maverick: Original Run -- September 22, 1957 - April 22, 1962
The Donna Reed Show: Original Run -- September 24, 1958 - March 19, 1966
The Twilight Zone: Original Run -- October 1, 1959 - June 1, 1964

Dragnet is questionable, because there were so many versions of it. To quote from Wikipedia:

"The original Dragnet starring Jack Webb as Sgt. Friday ran on radio from June 3, 1949 to February 26, 1957 and on television from December 16, 1951 to August 23, 1959, and from January 12, 1967 to April 16, 1970. All of these versions ran on NBC. There were two Dragnet feature films, a straight adaptation starring Webb in 1954 and a comedy spoof in 1987. There were also television revivals, without Webb, in 1989 and 2003. There was also a newspaper comic strip version of Dragnet written by Jack Webb and Joe Scheiber that ran in newspapers from about 1952 to 1955."

***

Also, can I just say that after having seen Rose Red, the song "A Summer Place" has some distinctly creepy connotations?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 24 February 2008, 08:19 PM
Sweeney_Todd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

there is only one incident I remember when a young man (possible teenager) was physically abusing his wife/girlfriend in public. Within seconds, a bunch of other men pulled him off and returned the favor. Though I don't see it often now, when I do see instances of physical abuse, the attitude of people watching seems to be "none of my business".

The only thing I really miss about the 60's is the lack of crime. we never locked the doors on the house, kids ran thru the neighborhood playing, even after dark. Kids were often left without adult supervision. There was safety in neighborhoods, mostly because everyone knew each other and watched out for each other. People were friends as well as neighbors. But, that can be said for the 50's, 40's, 30's, 20's, etc. I am not sure when that changed.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 24 February 2008, 09:50 PM
Pudding Crawl's Avatar
Pudding Crawl Pudding Crawl is offline
 
Join Date: 29 July 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweeney_Todd View Post
we never locked the doors on the house, kids ran thru the neighborhood playing, even after dark. Kids were often left without adult supervision.
See, I can look out of my window and see that going on here (well, maybe not at 10 to eleven.) The outwards signs that seem so important to glurge writers are all present. It's not a posh area in the slightest.
I can't say that I know everyone and we all 'look out for each other'- I say hello to neighbours, shopkeepers etc. but that's just what you do, it's polite. I would say that, were I about 10, I'd love to be here as it seems a spiffing place to play.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 24 February 2008, 10:09 PM
Pudding Crawl's Avatar
Pudding Crawl Pudding Crawl is offline
 
Join Date: 29 July 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweeney_Todd View Post
Though I don't see it often now, when I do see instances of physical abuse, the attitude of people watching seems to be "none of my business".
Thinking about this a little more- if I were the woman in your example, I would be far more afraid of the abuser's reaction once we were not in public view. A beating administered on the girlfriend's behalf could easily be used as a reason to 'punish' her further. I would not want random strangers to get involved.
If they just administered a beating and then left the two alone, good deed done for the day, the abuser would probably just learn to do it in private. Vigilanteism does not think ahead.
I would *hope* that what passers-by do upon seeing an obvious instance of physical abuse is make themselves scarce and call the police etc. Perhaps they are doing this nowadays? (I would do this, and have in similar circumstances.)
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 24 February 2008, 10:20 PM
Sweeney_Todd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Thinking about this a little more- if I were the woman in your example, I would be far more afraid of the abuser's reaction once we were not in public view. A beating administered on the girlfriend's behalf could easily be used as a reason to 'punish' her further. I would not want random strangers to get involved.
If they just administered a beating and then left the two alone, good deed done for the day, the abuser would probably just learn to do it in private. Vigilanteism does not think ahead.
I would *hope* that what passers-by do upon seeing an obvious instance of physical abuse is make themselves scarce and call the police etc. Perhaps they are doing this nowadays? (I would do this, and have in similar circumstances.)
Well, this was before the days of the cell phones and public phones were nto everywhere. You could not call the cops. I think it's more the attitude. I hear the expression "bitch slap" from younger guys and people laugh. 40 years ago, people would have been horrified and even angry if a man admitted to striking a woman. Does domestic violence happen more now that 40 years ago? I have no idea.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 24 February 2008, 10:26 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweeney_Todd View Post
Well, this was before the days of the cell phones and public phones were nto everywhere. You could not call the cops. I think it's more the attitude. I hear the expression "bitch slap" from younger guys and people laugh. 40 years ago, people would have been horrified and even angry if a man admitted to striking a woman.
Is this true?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 24 February 2008, 10:45 PM
Sweeney_Todd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
See, I can look out of my window and see that going on here (well, maybe not at 10 to eleven.) The outwards signs that seem so important to glurge writers are all present. It's not a posh area in the slightest.
I can't say that I know everyone and we all 'look out for each other'- I say hello to neighbours, shopkeepers etc. but that's just what you do, it's polite. I would say that, were I about 10, I'd love to be here as it seems a spiffing place to play
It was not just a m atter of peering out windows. Most people did not have central a/c and people spent more time outdoors. TV was, as my father used to say "cretinous and chewing gum for the mind" and video games did not exist. We just spent more time outside as a family than I think people do now. Neighbors "visited" but not further than the porch. This was a lower, middle class neighborhood and by no means posh. It was a different time than today. In some ways better I think and, in many ways worse. But, admittedly, it was different.

My father tells stories about growing up in the 1930's. Some stories are great and some I feel "I am glad I did nto grow up then". It was not all bad and not all good but the stories are always enjoyable to listen to. People tend to forget the bad and remeber the good. If someone has pleasant memories of a place and time, why not? My Grandaddy told me stories of being in France during WWI. he never mentioned the combat or the living conditions but they were stories about his friends. Nostalgia can be just memories of you and your friends, not society as a whole.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 24 February 2008, 10:57 PM
Brad from Georgia's Avatar
Brad from Georgia Brad from Georgia is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2000
Location: Snellvile, GA
Posts: 13,206
Default

Hmm...back in the early sixties, the KKK beat up two men in my home town, and got off scot free. In the middle sixties, for the only time in my life that I know of, someone deliberately shot at me one night.* I was in my car, heard a "crack!" and thought a piece of gravel had hit my windshield. Only when I got home did I see the spiderwebbed hole in the driver's side back window of my car. The .22 slug was embedded in the passenger-side headrest. No idea who'd want to plug me.

*A little before that my uncle shot the heel off one of my shoes while I was wearing it, but he claimed that was accidental.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 24 February 2008, 11:29 PM
Sweeney_Todd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Is this true?
Honestly, I don't know. I would have to guess that they were trying to be funny when they said it. But, even in jest, I can't imagine men even joking about striking a woman 40 years ago.

A grapefruit in the face, ala James Cagney, is much more effective

self slap ->
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.